WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 1189

Court reporting: digital reporters and legal transcriptionists.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Tom Lackey

The bill creates new certified roles for digital reporters and legal transcriptionists, enabling digitally captured records and certified transcripts, with fees and rules overseen

In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
#courtreporting #digitalreportersandlegaltranscriptionists
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 1189

AB 1189 — Court reporting: digital reporters and legal transcriptionists

Author: Chen Lackey (introduced Feb 21, 2025)
Status: In committee (set for first hearing; hearing canceled at request of author). Classification: bill; appropriation.

Purpose

Modernize California’s court reporting licensing and practice framework by creating board certifications for “digital reporters” and “legal transcriptionists,” authorizing specified duties for each, and adjusting evidentiary, discovery, and court staffing rules to reflect use of digital recording and transcription.

Key provisions

  • Creates new certifications under the Court Reporters Board of California for:
    • Digital reporters — authorized to digitally capture the official record of proceedings and to perform duties such as administering oaths to witnesses.
    • Legal transcriptionists — authorized to prepare and certify transcripts derived from electronic recordings made by digital reporters, and to receive fees for transcription services.
  • Certification/qualification requirements: Applicants for either certificate must obtain a certificate from a specified professional organization or meet other statutory requirements (details to be established by the board).
  • Fees: The board must set certification and renewal fees for the new categories. Some fees will be deposited into the Transcript Reimbursement Fund (a continuously appropriated fund); because of this, the bill makes an appropriation.
  • Labor protection: Makes it an unfair labor practice for a California court to terminate a certified shorthand (stenographic) reporter and transfer duties to a digital reporter or legal transcriptionist. Creates a presumption of violation if termination occurs within a specified number of days before/after hiring a digital reporter or transcriptionist (the exact number of days is left blank in the current text).
  • Discovery and depositions: Amends the Civil Discovery Act so depositions may be recorded stenographically either by a certified shorthand reporter or a certified digital recorder; defines “recorded stenographically” to include either method.
  • Evidence/admissibility: Specifies that, if otherwise admissible, a digitally captured transcript is admissible if the recording was made under supervision of a digital reporter and transcribed by a digital reporter or certified legal transcriptionist.
  • Court recordings: Permits courts that use electronic recording equipment (e.g., in limited civil or certain criminal cases) to require digital reporters to perform recordings and requires transcripts to be prepared by certified legal transcriptionists.

Who is affected

  • Court reporters (certified shorthand reporters) — protection against replacement in some circumstances; possible changes to scope of practice.
  • Prospective digital reporters and legal transcriptionists — new certification pathway and duties.
  • Courts and county/local governments — may need to adjust staffing, contract, and certification practices; fees and fund deposits affect Court Reporters Board operations.
  • Litigants and attorneys — changes in admissibility rules for digitally captured transcripts and deposition-recording methods.

Fiscal and legal notes

  • The bill authorizes the board to set fees (existing fee ranges for shorthand reporters are retained in statute) and requires some receipts to be deposited into the Transcript Reimbursement Fund; it includes an appropriation related to that fund.
  • The bill expands the scope of existing criminal provisions regulating shorthand reporting, which the Legislative Counsel notes would create a state-mandated local program.
  • The digest indicates the bill states “no reimbursement is required” under California’s state-mandated local costs process for a specified reason.
  • Some statutory language in the draft is incomplete (e.g., number of days for the presumption of unlawful replacement is blank); additional implementing regulations and board rulemaking will be needed.

Procedural history / next steps

  • Introduced Feb 21, 2025; read and amended; referred to Judiciary and Business & Professions Committees. Set for first hearing April 21, 2025, but hearing was canceled at the request of the author. Remains in committee for further consideration and potential amendment.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.